Dissertation - Structure of House

7/24/2019 Dissertation - Structure of House

1/97

HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN MANHYIA SUB-METRO OF

KUMASI

By

Brembah Marian (B.A.)

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Sociology and Social Work, Kwame

Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Faculty of Social Studies, College of Art and Social Sciences

November, 2013


2/97

i

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work towards the M.A Degree in

Sociology and that, to the best of my knowledge, it contains no material previously

published by another person nor material which has been accepted for the award of any

other degree of the University, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the

text.

Brembah Marian, PG5697511 .. ............

Student Name & ID Signature Date

Certificated by:

Dr. Martin Kwaku Yeboah ..

SupervisorsName Signature Date

Certificated by:

Mr. Jonas Asamanin Barnie ..

SupervisorsName Signature Date

Certificated by:

Dr. K. O. Akuoko .. .Head of Dept. Name Signature Date


3/97

ii

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my love, my daughter Adepa Afriyie and all heads of

households in Manhyia sub- Metro of Kumasi.


4/97

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank those who sacrificed the most during this endeavor, especially my

mother. Without the support from my mother, Mary Brembah, my education would not

have been possible. I would like to take a moment to thank my daughter, Adepa for

sacrificing time spent with me because of the time required for this accomplishment.

I would like to appreciate the patience and understanding offered by my partner, Joe, who

made the struggle as easy for me as he could. I would also like to thank my supervisor,

Dr. Martin Kwaku Yeboah for providing me all the instructions and advice needed to

excel in the masters program.

I also wish to acknowledge the encouragement and support I received from the following

persons: Mr. Jonas Asamanin Barnie (KNUST), Mr. Bright Addo (KNUST), Mr

Emmanuel Osei (GSS ) and Mrs. Alice Gyamfi (St. Hubert SHS)

Finally to all students and teachers who participated in the field survey as well as the

head teachers of the schools who assisted with the survey, I am sincerely grateful to you

all.


5/97

iv

ABSTRACT

This study describes the household structure of Junior High School pupils in Manhyia

sub-metro of Kumasi and their academic performance. The objectives were to establish

the relationships between household size, sex of household head, economic background

of household head, the level of education of household head and academic performance

of pupils.

The study was a cross-sectional descriptive study of 100 J.H.S. students in Manhyia Sub-

metro of Kumasi between the ages of 12 15 years who were sampled by using multi-

stage sampling technique. The sample consisted of only level two J.H.S. students in order

to maintain consistency. Chi-square test of independence was used in testing the research

hypothesis to determine relationships between the independent variables (Household

characteristics) and the dependent variable (academic performance).

The results of the study indicated that, there was no significant relationship between sex

of household head, economic background of pupils, household size and the level of

education of household head as independent variables and academic performance of

pupils (p = 0.06, 0.89, 0.75, 0.71 respectively). The findings of this study provided

evidence that household size and the other household characteristics indicated no

significant impacts on academic performance of pupils. The study recommends that

further studies be carried out to include other household factors.


6/97

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

DECLARATION ................................................................................................................. i

DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................. iii

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. x

CHAPTER ONE............................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background to the study ............................................................................................ 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................... 5

1.3 Research Questions ................................................................................................. 10

1.4 Research Objectives ................................................................................................ 10

1.5 Research Hypotheses............................................................................................... 11

1.6 Significance of the study ......................................................................................... 12

1.7 Justification of the study ......................................................................................... 12

1.8 Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................... 13

1.9 scope of the study .................................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER TWO............................................................................................................ 14

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................... 14

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 14

2.2 Definition of concepts ............................................................................................. 14

2.3 Relevant literature ................................................................................................... 17

2.3.1 Household size and academic performance ..................................................... 17

2.3.2 Performance of students in female-headed and male-headed households ....... 21

2.3.3 Economic status of household head and academic performance of pupils ...... 24

2.3.4 Household education and academic performance of pupils ............................ 30


7/97

vi

2.4 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................... 32

2.4.1 System Theory ................................................................................................. 32

2.4.2 Blooms Sub Environment Model................................................................... 33

2.4.3 Social Capital Theory ...................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER THREE........................................................................................................ 37

RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.2. Source of data ......................................................................................................... 37

3.2.1 Secondary sources ............................................................................................ 37

3.2.2 Primary source ................................................................................................. 38

3.3 Design of social survey ........................................................................................... 38

3.3.1 Target Population ............................................................................................. 38

3.3.2 Sampling method and size ............................................................................... 38

3.3.4 Data processing ................................................................................................ 40

3.4 Ethical issues ........................................................................................................... 41

CHAPTER FOUR........................................................................................................... 43

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION .................................................................. 43

4.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 43

SECTION A: Socio-demographic Background of respondents .................................... 43

4.1.1 Sex Distribution of Respondents ..................................................................... 43

4.1.2 Age Distribution of Respondents ..................................................................... 44

4.1.3 Ethnicity of Respondents ................................................................................. 45

4.1.4 Religious Affiliation of Respondents............................................................... 46

4.1.5 Sibship size of study Participants .................................................................... 46

4.2 Academic Details of Pupils ..................................................................................... 47

4.2.1 Person who pays pupils school fees ................................................................. 47

4.2.2 Missing school and number of missed times ................................................... 47

4.2.3 Getting help with homework ........................................................................... 48

4.2.4 Performance of Pupils on Four Selected Subject ............................................. 49

SECTION B: Household Characteristics ...................................................................... 51

4.3.1 Age of Household Head ................................................................................... 52

4.3.2 Relationship to the Head of Household ........................................................... 52

4.3.3 Marital Status of Household Head ................................................................... 53

4.3.4 Highest Level of Education of Household Head ............................................. 54


8/97

vii

4.3.4 Occupation of household heads ....................................................................... 55

4.3.5 Dwelling type and owner of dwelling .............................................................. 55

4.3.6 Economic background of household ................................................................ 57

SECTION C: Relationship between household characteristics and academic

performance ................................................................................................................... 57

CHAPTER FIVE............................................................................................................ 66

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS................. 66

5.1 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................. 66

5.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 69

5.3 Recommendation ..................................................................................................... 70

REFERENCE...................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

APPENDIX A.................................................................................................................. 76

Household Structure and Academic Performance of Pupils in Junior High School in

Manhyia sub-Metro of Kumasi. .................................................................................... 77

Pupils Questionnaire........................................................................................................ 77

APPENDIX B.................................................................................................................. 81

Chi-square Test Results ................................................................................................. 81


9/97

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 1.1 Trends in Gross Enrolment Ratios in Basic Schools 2008-2010 7

Table 1.2 Trends in BECE Pass Rate, 2009-2011 8

Table 4.1 Sex distribution of Pupils 44

Table 4.2 Age distribution of Pupils 45

Table 4.3 Frequency Table for Pupils Ethnicity 45

Table 4.4 Participants Religious Group 46

Table 4.5 Respondents number of siblings 46

Table 4.6 Respondents self report on who pays fees 47

Table 4.7 Crosstab of getting help and who provides help with home work 49

Table 4.8 Mean and Standard Deviation on Four Test Scores 50

Table 4.9 Academic Performance of Pupils 50

Table 4.10 Crosstab of head and gender of household head 51

Table 4.11 Age of households heads 52

Table 4.12 Frequency table for relationship to household head 53

Table 4.13 Marital status of household head 53

Table 4.14 Household size of pupils 54

Table 4.15 Highest level of education of household head 55

Table 4.16 Occupation of household head 55

Table 4.17 Owner of dwelling 56

Table 4.18 Economic background of household 57

Table 4.19 Relationship between family size and pupils academic performance 60

Table 4.20 Relationship between household head and pupils academic

performance

62

Table 4.21 Relationship between economic background and pupils academic

performance

63

Table 4.22 Relationship between household head level of education and pupilsacademic performance

65

Table 4.23 Results indicating significance of tested Hypotheses 65


10/97

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 1.0 Conceptual model of the relationship between household structure

and childrens academic performance

35

Figure 4.1 Participants self report data on ever missing school 48

Figure 4.2 Respondents self reported place of dwelling at the time of survey 56


11/97

x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADEA - Association for the Development of Education in Africa

EFA - Education for All

UBE - Universal Basic Education

MDGs - Millennium Development Goals

JHS - Junior High School

SHS - Senior High School

FCUBE - Free compulsory Universal Basic Education

CSPSS - Computerized School Placement into Secondary school

WAEC - West Africa Examination Council

BECE - Basic Education Certificate Examination

GSS - Ghana Statistical Service

GLSS - Ghana Living Standard Survey

X2

- Chi-square

PHC - Population and Housing Census

ES - Economic status


12/97

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

Education has remained a social process in capacity building and maintenance of society

(Adepoju & Fabiyi, n.d). Though education is not enlisted as one of the three basic needs,

it is equally important and necessary for the progress of a nation and the enrichment of

society in general. A countrys literate population is its asset. This has led to many

government-aided educational programs and government grant to schools (Education

Sector Report 2010)

Basic education gives fundamentals of learning while we specialize in fields of our

interest during degree courses. But education does not end here. It is a lifelong process.

Self- learning begins at a point where institutional education ends.

Warsaw conference (2009), organized by the International Consultative Forum decided to

redefine national approaches to basic education and recognized it as an indispensable

instrument for individual empowerment in the emerging information-based society. It

adopted a framework of action to update basic education and extend its availability to all

people. The framework recommends the need to promote effective partnership between

schools, households, communities and political authorities.

The meaning of basic education has broadened after the World Declaration on Education

for All (EFA) to meet basic learning needs. This was the prelude to the launching of the


13/97

2

Universal Basic Education (UBE) introduced in the Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs). This is to ensure that children of school going- age must be in school to acquire

the needed skills and knowledge that will serve as a foundation for basic education. A

universally subscribed goal is that, by 2015 all children have access to complete free and

compulsory basic education of good quality (Declaration of World Education Forum,

Senegal 2000).

Obayan, (2000) describes basic education as that level, type and form of learning needed

to build firm root for literacy and numeracy, to inculcate basic life skills and more

importantly consolidate the skills of learning how to learn.

However, the problems identified in the implementation of this policy included lack of

infrastructure, qualified teachers and household issues. These factors may affect the

academic performance of students.

As a step towards a long term solution to Africas education problem, the United Nations

system-wide special initiative on Africa is planning a major emphasis on facilitating basic

education for all African children. President Abdou Diouf of Senegal told a meeting of

the Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) in 1997 that it only

through education that the continent and its sons and daughters would be able to meet the

demands and challenges of the 21stcentury.

Ghana like many other countries around the world has over the years sought to improve

its educational system by introducing reforms and making projections based on the

educational needs of the country. The scope includes six years primary and three years

Junior High School (JHS).


14/97

3

The Education Act 778 of 2008 seeks to provide for the establishment of an education

system intended to produce well balanced individuals with the requisite knowledge,

skills, values, aptitudes and attitudes to become functional and productive citizens for the

total development and the democratic advancement of the nation and for related matters.

The educational reforms of 1987 in Ghana also sought to improve the educational system

and to cater for all potential talents after general studies at the basic level. The student

may either continue at Senior High School (SHS), Technical institute or take to

apprenticeship course in any trade.

Again in 1995, the Free Compulsory Universal Basic Education (FCUBE) was

introduced to provide good education for children of school-going age in Ghana at basic

education levelprimary and JHS. The FCUBE is to strengthen the UBE program and to

improve teaching and learning particularly in public basic schools thereby reducing the

poor academic performance.

However, childrens enrolment is based on a complex mix of factors which include the

educational level of parents (particularly mothers), the ability to pay cost of schooling

and the type of households. In some cases, the likelihood of a childs enrolment is an

outcome of the different ways in which households are organized (Hashim, 2005).

It is generally accepted that the quality of family interactions has important associations

with children's and adolescents' academic motivation and achievement, and with young

adults' eventual educational and occupational attainments. Kellaghan et al (1993), claim

for example, that the family environment is the most powerful influence in determining

students' school achievement, academic motivation, and the number of years of schooling


15/97

4

they will receive. Similarly, Coleman (1991), states that parents' involvement in learning

activities has substantial emotional and intellectual benefits for children. He observes,

however, that because supportive and strong families are significant for school success,

teachers confront increasing challenges as many children experience severe family

disruption and upheaval. Although it is acknowledged that households are perhaps the

most substantial influence on children's school success, it is not always clear which

family influences are the most important. In addition, research findings are inconclusive

about the extent to which relationships between family interactions and academic

performance are independent of a child's family background and family structure. A

household may be structurally intact or broken. A broken household is not structurally

intact for various reasons such as death, separation, divorce and neglect of a parent.

However, household heads play important roles in the growth and development of their

children. The type of parent in the household as well as the relationship between the

parents is strongly linked to a childs academic performance and wellbeing.

Students at Junior High School level are often marked by changes in school context,

family relation and developmental processes. The academic performance of children in

junior high school level and the type of household structure are the main focus of this

research

There is no way in which household heads can evade having a determining effect on

their childrens personality, character and competence (Baumrind, 1979). The functions

of households greatly influence how children develop (Arendal, 1997).


16/97

5

One key factor for academic performance is the structure of the household of the pupil.

Gottfried et al (1998), found in their longitudinal study of academic intrinsic motivation,

that home environment was significantly related to academic intrinsic motivation

beginning in childhood and lasting through early adolescence.

Also, Wentzel (1998), examined how the home environment and other factors influence

classroom motivation. The result of this indicated that parent support, a concept related to

warmth, was a positive predictor of school- related interest and goal achievement.

Household structure plays an important role in childrens academic achievement. The

Coleman findings indicated that, school-level differences had little impact on variation

among individual children in terms of their academic success. This set the pace for added

effort in investigating family background and its impact on academic success for children

(Coleman, Campbell, Hobson, McPartland, & Mood; 1966). Household setting and

background are key to a students academic performance and consist of factors such as

socio-economic-status of the household, sex of household head and neighborhoods

(Marjoribanks, 1996).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Basic education in Ghana is tuition-free and compulsory. It starts from kindergarten to

JHS. The structure consists of two years kindergarten, six years primary and three years

JHS. After basic school, students enter SHS or Vocational /Technical schools for a three

year course through Computerized School Placement into Secondary Schools (CSPSS).


17/97

6

Long before the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), past governments in Ghana

have recognized basic education as a fundamental building block of the economy. The

target for the MDG 2 is to achieve Universal Access to Basic Education by 2015. Since

2002, conscious efforts have been made by government of Ghana to integrate the MDG 2

into the development policy frameworks.

In Ghana, there have been several educational reforms and new policy measures towards

making basic education accessible to all. Such policy measures include;

Capitation Grants for Basic Schools

School Feeding Program

Free textbooks and uniforms

Upgrading Training Colleges to Tertiary level

Construction of new classroom blocks to replace schools under trees.

Introduction of Information and Communication Technology at the basic

level

Giving incentives to teachers posted to deprived areas.

In addition, spending on basic education received the highest amount of 47.2% of the

total government spending followed by spending in poverty reduction 19% and primary

health care 18%. Expenditure on the School Feeding Programme and the Capitation

Grant constitute a huge part of the basic education share (NDC Manifesto, 2009). The

major aim of these interventions is to increase and sustain attendance from the poorest

households to achieve Universal Basic Education.


18/97

7

The results of these policy interventions have been encouraging. There is a significant

improvement in enrolment at the basic school level in response to the policy measures

implementation by the Education sector.

Table 1.1Trends in Gross Enrolment Ratios in Basic Schools 2008-2010

Level of education 2008 2009 2010

Kindergarten 89.9% 92.9% 97.3%

Primary 95.2% 94.9% 94.9%

JHS 78.8% 80.6% 79.5%

Source: Education Sector Performance Report, 2010

The compelling evidence is that, reducing considerably the cost to parents of sending

children to school, greatly increase access to primary schooling (Appleton et al., 1996;

Merton, 1998).

Despite gains in school enrolment, concerns have been raised about quality of education

in Ghana. According to West Africa Examination Council (WAEC) reports from the past

three years, almost half of the total number of candidates who sat the Basic Education

Certificate Examination (BECE) failed to get the required grade to enter SHS.

The World Development Report (2000/2001) indicated that the biggest problem besides

lack of food is lack of power directly related to lack of knowledge. Worldwide, almost

one billion are illiterate because they had no basic education or because the quality was

too low.


19/97

8

WAEC reports 2009, 2010 and 2011 indicated the following figures:

Table 1.2: Trends in BECE Pass Rate, 2009-2011

Source: Education Sector Performance Report, 2010

This indicates a falling trend in the standards of education, in especially at the basic level,

which is the most important stage of a childsformative years. This may be a reflection

of either poor teaching and learning or low investment in education by stakeholders

including household heads. This therefore calls for an investigation.

The situation at the district level especially, Kumasi metropolis was not very different.

The BECE results table indicates that the number of pupils who qualified for placement

into SHS in Kumasi metro were 53%, 49% and 55% for 2008, 2009, and 2010

respectively.

A breakdown of results according to Sub Metros indicated that the number of pupils who

qualified for placement into SHS within the Manhyia Sub Metro of Kumasi were 49%

54% and 56% for 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively (Kumasi Metro Education Office,

2010).

Year Number of candidates Passed Percentage

2009 338,292 210,282 62.16%

2010 350,888 172,359 49.12%

2011 375,280 176,128 46.93%


20/97

9

Students academic performance is associated with their background and especially, to

those activities which occurred in their homes. There is also enough evidence that the

activities which go on in students homes are linked to the social status of their parents

and that many working class parents do not succeed to produce even minimum level of

stimulation for their children intellectual facilities (Raven, 1977).

There are varieties of factors which may be responsible for poor and unsatisfactory

academic performance of students. These factors include; ineffective teaching,

absenteeism, lack of basic educational facilities, illiteracy of parents, household size, lack

of parental care, unfavorable environment inside the school and home. Economic

hardship in low income households is likely to require pupils in JHS to work long hours

and take responsibility for younger siblings. As a result of these time consuming

activities pupils are likely to have limited time for studies.

Secondly, absence of one parent is detrimental to academic performance because female

headed households have limited access to the material goods that promote higher

academic performance of students.

At the basic level of education, poor academic achievement not only limits ones

progression further in school but also negatively affects an individuals future income and

productivity (Hanushek & Pace, 1995). The recognition of the problem of poor academic

performance has not translated into the development of more effective actions to improve

education quality and policies that will improve the chances of children in different

households to do well in school.


21/97

10

Since household heads play crucial role in childrens education, this research examines

the relationship between academic performance and household structure of JHS students.

1.3 Research Questions

The study was guided by the following research questions:

1 Does household size influence academic performance?

2 Do students in male-headed households perform better than those in female headed

households?

3 Is there a relationship between the economic background of a household and

academic performance?

4 Is there a relationship between the level of education of household head and

academic performance?

1.4 Research Objectives

The general objective of the study was to determine the relationship between different

household structures and academic performance with special focus on students at junior

high school level.

Specifically the study sought to;

1. Find the relationship between household size and academic performance of pupils

2. Identify the differences in the academic performance of students in male-headed

household and female-headed household.


22/97

11

3. Find the relationship between economic background of a household and academic

performance pupils

4. Determine the relationship between household heads level of education and

academic performance of pupils.

1.5 Research Hypotheses

In the light of the problem and the objectives of the study, the following null hypotheses

were tested at 0.05 level of significance;

H1:Pupils from small household size will perform better than pupils from large

household size.

H2:Sex of household head will significantly be related to academic performance of

pupils.

H3:Household economic background of pupils will significantly relate to academic

performance.

H4:Household heads level of education will significantly relate to academic

performance of pupils.


23/97

12

1.6 Significance of the study

Many JHS students cannot develop to their full potentials due to the nature of their

household. This study sought to address the issue of poor academic achievement of these

young adolescents and the type of household they come from.

Also the study will be useful to JHS teachers and other stakeholders of education in their

attempt to find solutions to the poor academic performance of JHS students in particular

and the falling standard of education in Ghana in general.

The study would be beneficial to policy makers, nongovernmental organizations, the

Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection in their

attempt to investigate issues of poor performance of JHS students. The research will

serve as an additional source of reference for future research.

1.7 Justification of the study

The poor academic performance especially, the BECE results at both national and district

levels require investigation to facilitate quality basic education delivery. This study will

assist other stakeholders of education to develop an action plan to improve upon

academic performance especially at the BECE level.

Literature on the relationship between household structure and academic performance of

pupils in Ghana is uncommon. The findings of this research will serve as reference

material for future studies.


24/97

13

1.8 Limitations of the Study

This study had noteworthy limitations. One of such limitations pertained to the nature of

the design of the study. The data was cross-sectional. A longitudinal study in Math

English, Social Studies and Integrated Science scores and household characteristics

would have given a fuller picture of how household structure impacted academic

performance.

Another limitation was the limited number of household possessions that were used to

analyze the economic background of pupils. Adding one or more household possession

might affect the findings of the results. Thus future research should include a more

comprehensive list of household possessions, including household items that have been

shown to affect academic performance.

Also most of the respondents (pupils) were not comfortable with the use of face-to-face

primary data collection tool (Researcher administered questionnaire). Most of the

respondents initially felt reluctant to give the actual household background information,

especially questions that require the economic background of household head. However,

with assurance of anonymity and confidentiality, the participants felt comfortable to

contribute.

1.9 scope of the study

The study covered the various household characteristics in relation to the academic

performance of pupils in Manhyia-Sub Metro of Kumasi Metropolitan Area. The focus of

this study was limited to BECE results between 2009 and 2011.


25/97

14

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Introduction

This chapter consists of relevant ideas from books, journals, articles and reports in

relation to the research questions and objectives. This makes it possible for the researcher

to combine different works together in order to have ideas and to find out the existing

body of knowledge related to this study. Going through literature acquaints the researcher

with the methodologies that have been used by others to find answers to research

questions similar to the research being undertaken.

This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section provides the definitions of

some concepts in this study. The second section covers relevant literatures that are related

to the objectives of the study. The third section is relevant theories for the study.

2.2 Definition of concepts

Like most works of this kind, it could not have been understood without operational

definition of certain concepts. With regards to this work, the following are the concepts

and their definitions.

Household

There is usually, a little confusion about what is meant by family structure and household

structure. There is a great dissimilarity between the two. Family members are group of


26/97

15

people who are related by blood, marriage and adoption (Gyekye, 2001). However,

household is a group of people who share the same housekeeping and eating

arrangements (Nukunya, 2003).

Household is defined by Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) as a person or a group of

persons who live together in the same house or compound and share the same house

keeping arrangement (GSS, 2012).

Household structure

Household structure can be described as the composition of a household. In general, a

household may consist of a man, his wife, children and some relatives or a house help

who may be staying with them (GSS, 2012).

It is important to note that members of a household are not necessarily related by blood or

marriage because non relative (house help) may form part of a household.

Household head

A household head is a male or female member of the household who has economic and

social responsibility for the household and recognized as such by other household

members (PHC, 2010).


27/97

16

Household Size

Household size refers to the number of persons in a household. In this study households

that were less than or equal to five were categorized as small household size. Those that

were more than five were considered as large household size.

Economic Background

Economic background in this study was measured by the possessions or assets of the

household. Such assets included ownership of the following: car, motorbike, bicycle,

mobile phone, computer and internet. The economic background of household was

further categorized into three levels, with households possessing all the six (6) items

belonging to or classified as high economic background households. Households which

possessed three (3) or four (4) of the listed items were also classified as medium

economic background households, while households which possessed two (2) or one (1)

of the six items classified as low economic background households.

Academic Performance

Academic performance is the ability of students to study and remember facts and being

able to communicate knowledge verbally or down on a paper. (www.wikianswer.com).

The academic performance in this study refers to the pupilsmarks in English Language,

Integrated Science, Mathematics and social studies.
http://www.wikianswer.com/http://www.wikianswer.com/http://www.wikianswer.com/http://www.wikianswer.com/


28/97

17

Basic Education

Basic Education refers to two years of kindergarten education, six years of primary

school education and two years of Junior High School education (Ministry of Education

2003).

Level of Education

Level of education refers to the highest level of formal school that a person ever attended

or was attending (PHC, 2010). This information was obtained from the household heads.

The level of education was of household heads were categorized into low (Basic

Education), medium (Secondary) and high (post secondary).

2.3 Relevant literature

2.3.1 Household size and academic performance

Studies conducted on educational attainment of children and the size of the household

indicated that children from large household size attain less schooling on the average than

those children with few brothers and sisters. This negative effect of household size on

educational attainment persists after the socioeconomic characteristics of the household

are statistically controlled (Slake, 1989).

These studies assumed that large households spread their resources; economic, cultural

and effectiveness more thinly than do families with fewer children. This suggests that

parents who have many children invest less money, time, emotional and psychic energy,

and attention on each child (Blake, 1989; Golemen, 1988).


29/97

18

However Blake (1989) hypothesizes that the negative effect of household size on

educational attainment in United States (USA) is weaker among Catholics than among

Protestants because the Catholic community extends various kinds of support to its

members such as family-based tuition in its parochial school and parish network that

distribute used- clothing for children. Community support reduces the negative effect of

household size because the dilution of resources from the nuclear family is countered by

resources from an external source the (community).

Cole and Hoffer (1987) reported that among students attending Catholic schools,

household size is only weakly related to school achievement. Blake also found that

among U.S. Jews, the effect of family size on educational attainment is weak. She

attributed this to the value Orthodox Judaism placed on large families and extended

periods of schooling.

Powell and Steelman (1993) and Van Ejick and DeGraaf (1995) argued that childrens

attainment depends on inputs of time and money from their parents: the more children

there are in the family the less of both inputs. These inputs are not money alone, but other

essential things like time, attention, resource dilution and so on. However, Booth and Kee

(2006) confirmed that children from larger families have lower levels of education.

Research on the effect of siblings size and position has been based on a theory of the

allocation of parental resources as presented in Becker (1981) and Spauta and Paulson

(1995) confirmed that differences were found in birth order and family size of

adolescents achievement in academic.


30/97

19

The relationship between family size and childrens educational outcomes is

conventionally addressed in what is known as the Quantity-Quality model (QQ)

(Becker, 1960; Becker and Lewis, 1973; Becker and Tomes, 1976). Beckers QQ model

is a model of investment where households decide the level of resources allocated per

child (quality). The model assumes these investments lead to higher levels of child

quality but the direct implication of the model is a tradeoff between child investment

and number of children in the family.

Studies investigating the impact of family structure on academic achievement show that

family structure such as the number of children has a resource dilution hypotheses where

the material resources and parental attention are diluted with additional children in the

household (Bachman, 2002). However, Marks (2006), in a cross-country study testing the

impact of family size on academic achievement, found that in almost all countries the

effect of family size declined by between a quarter and a half when taking into account a

familys socioeconomic background (Marks, 2006). Marks concluded that much of the

association between household size and educational outcomes is simply due to the

correspondence between large families and lower socio-economic status (Marks, 2006).

Smaller household size has been linked with higher academic achievement of the

students. Students with fewer siblings are likely to receive more parents attention and

have more access to resources as compared to those children whose families are large in

size. The additional attention and support leads to better school performance. The size of

families has some effects on academic performance of students. Students who belong to

larger families tend to have lower levels of achievement and lower levels of secondary

graduation, on average than children who belong to smaller families. The reality is that


31/97

20

parents of many children cannot afford to divide quality time with their children. Value

added quality time is hard to set aside to supervise the academic aspects of the children.

Conversely, parents with two to three children can afford the time to increase their

children academic potentials because their time is only shared with less number of

children (Eamon, 2000; Majoribanks, 1996).

Nutall et. al. (2000) in their study on family size and academic achievement selected a

sample of 306 girls and 247 boys from the Boston area. The sample was divided into

small family (two kids) and large family (5+ kids) groups. Academic achievement was

examined using school records and IQ tests. Nutall et al concluded that boys from small

families tended to have better academic achievement than boys from large families

because boys in the larger families are probably more influenced by peer groups who

tend to have anti-academic values.

In the empirical literature, however, the negative influence of family size on child

outcomes has been often studied but the direct influence on investments in children has

received little attention. Often scholastic achievements (Rosenzweig & Wolpin, 1980a;

Blake, 1981; Hauser and Sewell, 1986; Hanushek, 1992; Hill and O Neill, 1994; Black,

Devereux and Salvanes, 2005; Conley and Glauber, 2005) or cognitive development

(Belmont & Morolla, 1973; Wolfe, 1982) are used as measures of child quality.

The argument is that parents of many children cannot afford to divide quality time with their

children.


32/97

21

2.3.2 Performance of students in female-headed and male-headed households

First, children in non-traditional household structures are less likely to grow up with

access to pro-educational resources (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). The selection

argument finds some support in recent studies, such as Dews (2009) study examining the

mechanisms linking household financial assets and divorce; fewer assets is related to a

higher probability of divorce.

Many studies have revealed that children who grow up in single-parent households are

less likely to complete high school or even attend college than the children who grow up

with both parents (Amato, 1987).

Garfinkel and Melanahan (1986) asserted that one reason why children from single-

parent households are less likely to finish high school is the precarious economic position

of their families. Mother-only households are more likely than other families to be poor,

and their poverty is more extreme than that of other groups (Bane, 1983).

Children growing up in non-intact households are more likely to drop out of school (high

school). This disengagement from school is associated with the low education

aspirations, since high aspirations are a critical factor predicting education achievement

(Sewell & Shah, 1968).

In a recent summary of the literature on parental time, Gauthier, and Monna (2008) find

few differences in the parental time allocation patterns of cohabitating and married

parents, but multiple studies show that single or divorced parents spend less time with

their children as compared to biological two parents household. The in-school experience

of children from non-traditional homes may not be very different from that of their


33/97

22

classmates from traditional families, but after school these youth may experience

divergent outcomes depending upon the level of parental supervision, exposure to peers,

skill-building opportunities, and time with household members that they experience

(Astone et al., 2007). Astone et al. (2007) also indicated that the effects of lower levels of

parent supervision are likely to be most deleterious to youth in poor, urban areas because

of the high prevalence of violence and crime in these areas.

Another way in which non-traditional household structure may be negatively related to

educational outcomes is that non-traditional household structures are more likely to be

characterized by instability or conflict. Instability can disrupt a childs schooling success

in a number of ways, including causing emotional distress and high residential mobility

(Raley, Frisco & Wildsmith, 2005). Some US regions seem to recognize this probable

distress on children: for instance, in Utah, divorcing parents with children under 18 are

required to take a divorce education class that focuses on the emotional well-being of the

children, and how to help them cope with their parents divorce (Schramm, 2006).

Regarding the linkage between household instability and residential mobility, Schramm

(2006) shows that almost all divorces result in at least one geographic move

approximately 35 percent of divorces result in two geographic moves. For instance, the

average American child in a two-parent household experiences 1.5 residential moves

before age 15, while the average child from a divorced family moves 2.5 times (Schramm

2006). Residential moves can disrupt peer and student-teacher relationships for youth,

resulting in poor educational outcomes ( Langenkamp, 2009).


34/97

23

When there has been dissolution of a parental union, non-traditional household structures

may be characterized by conflict over both the temporal and financial resources dedicated

to the child. For instance, Forry et al. (2010) find that, with higher conflict after

separation, both fathers and mothers are less involved in their childs education.

According to these scholars, children of non-traditional homes would fare better in school

in societies with more social support for alternative families. Other scholars are less

optimistic and suggest that alternative family forms are inherently unstable for example,

(Popenoe, 1993).

Using the 2006 Continuous Household Survey of Uruguay, which provides information

on the timing of family transitions, we find strong evidence that being raised in a non-

traditional family is causally linked with students drop-out and falling behind in school.

The evidence shows that boys are especially vulnerable to negative educational

influences of non-traditional households. Differential responses to shocks (Sax, 2006) or

relatively less attention from (single) mothers (Gauthier and Monna, 2008) may explain

why boys are faring worse than girls. We suspect, however, that the gender gap is likely

because boys in non-traditional homes feel more pressure to exit the school system for

low wage work, rather than hazard another six or more years of school.

Single parenthood is associated with variety of stresses, poverty is foremost. Children

raised in mother only families are less likely to do well at schools, are more likely to be

implicated in antisocial activities and have poorer occupational opportunities than

offspring of intact families (McLanahan, Astone and Marks, 1991).


35/97

24

Many authors have documented differences between children raised in father-absent (FA)

and father-present (FP) homes (Balcom 1998; Biller 1970; Chapman, 1977; Daniels1986;

Downey, 1994; Downey, Ainsworth-Darnell, & Durfur, 1998; Fry & Scher, 1984; Milne,

Rosenthal and Ginsburg, 1986). Research has shown that FA children graduate from high

school and attend college at a lower rate (Sigle-Rushton & McLanahan, 2004), perform

worse on standardized tests (Bain, Boersma, and Chapman, 1983), and are more likely to

use drugs (Mandara & Murry, 2006) than children from FP homes. Research has also

shown that growing up without a father seems to have a greater negative effect on boys as

compared to girls (Mandara & Murry; Sigle-Rushton & McLanahan, 2004).

2.3.3 Economic status of household head and academic performance of pupils

Filmer and Pritchett developed an asset index which included household possessions and

household structural characteristics and classified them into different wealth groups

(poor, middle, rich) based on the asset index values. The advantage of an asset index is

that it can be used to evaluate the distribution of educational outcomes across different

socioeconomic status groups within countries (Filmer & Scott, 2008).

Economic resources such as income and assets, which are indicators of parent and

household socioeconomic status, influence youths academic achievement. Household

income and wealth have been shown to be associated with improvements in childrens

education in developing countries, including Sub-Saharan Africa (Filmer & Pritchett,

1999, 2001; Glick & Sahn, 2000, 2009; Lincove, 2009; Zhao & Glewwe, 2010). Decline

in income has been shown to negatively affect school enrollment of children in


36/97

25

developing countries (Grimm, 2010).Research has also shown that changes in youths

levels of educational aspiration or expectation are influenced by household

socioeconomic status (Hossler, Schmit, and Vesper, 1999; Reynolds and Pemberton,

2001; Valadez, 1998).

One way asset ownership, particularly liquid assets, influence youth academic

achievement is through a familys ability to purchase school materials (for example, text

books and other needed supplies) that can facilitate learning both in and outside of the

classrooms. For instance, research has shown positive association between household

computer ownership and childrens academic performance (Schmitt and Wadsworth,

2006) and school enrollment (Fairlie, 2005).

The key question is why assets, particularly liquid assets, have such a powerful impact on

academic achievement? Arguably the most widely used perspective on this question is a

sociological one. According to Teachman (1987), parents use material and non-material

resources to create a conducive atmosphere at home that fosters academic skills. Parents

allocate resources to children that may influence their education attainment and

achievement. Teachman (1987) further states that educational resources were more likely

to be available in the homes where parents were not only educated but also financially

stable.

Coleman (1990, 1998) has offered three capitals that influence a childs education:

financial, human and social capital. These are interrelated and a child requires all three to

achieve in optimal growth. Parents who are educated (human capital) are assumed to hold


37/97

26

stable jobs (financial capital) and are more inclined to be communicative with their

children in terms of their childrens education (social capital).

It is also troubling that some parents in Ghana and other developing countries question

the value and benefits of school for their children considering the additional costs and

resources necessary (Buchmann, 2000; Chant and Jones, 2005; Chowa, Ansong, and

Masa, 2010; Laird, 2002).

Studies have again been found that socio-economic status influences students

achievements (Jeynes, 2002; Eamon, 2005; Hochschild, 2003). Students who have a low

socio-economic status show poor result and are more likely to leave the school (Eamon,

2005; Hochschild 2003). It is believed that low socio-economic status has significant

negative affects on the academic achievement of the students because low socio-

economic status is the obstruction to access to vital resources and creates additional stress

at home (Eamon 2005; and Jeynes 2002). Many research studies have shown that the

socio-economic status is a factor responsible for the academic attainment of the students.

Morakinyo (2003) found that there is a relationship between socio-economic status and

academic achievement of the students. White (1986) in a Meta analysis of 620

correlations coefficient from 100 students, describes that there is a definite relationship

between socio-economic status and academic achievement of the students. He noted that

the frequency obtained correlation ranged from 0.10 to 0.70 which is positive

relationship. It means that if one factor is increased the other also increases. It came to

light that those children whose socio-economic status is strong show better academic


38/97

27

performance and those with poor socio-economic status show poor and unsatisfactory

academic performance.

There are also recent studies that support the idea that family structure is causally related

to educationally relevant resource deficiencies. One study, examining the perception of

childhood parental divorce among young Israeli adults, finds that most of their

interviewees described an economic decline following divorce (Eldar-Avidan et al.,

2008). A loss of economic resources in the home may directly impact a students

educational fortunes, perhaps most notably when the student feels pressure to generate

additional income for the home. Students who are able to work and help provide for their

family are likely to do so at a loss to their academic pursuits. The decline in parental

resources after divorce does not appear to be limited to financial assets. The in-school

experience of children from non-traditional homes may not be very different from that of

their classmates from traditional families, but after school these youth may experience

divergent outcomes depending upon the level of parental supervision, exposure to peers,

skill-building opportunities, and time with family members that they experience (Astone

et al., 2007). Astone et al. (2007) find that the effects of lower levels of parent

supervision are likely to be most deleterious to youth in poor, urban areas because of the

high prevalence of violence and crime in these areas.

Alexander, Entwisle and Bedinger (1994) found that parents of moderate to high income

and educational background held beliefs and expectations that were closer than those of

low-income families to the actual performance of their children, Low-income families

instead had high expectations and performance beliefs that did not correlate well with

their childrens actual school performance. Alexander et al also suggested that the


39/97

28

parents abilities to form accurate beliefs and expectations regarding their childrens

performance are essential in structuring the home.

In the United States (US), the gaps in achievement among poor and advantaged students

are substantial (Rowan et al., 2004). Through multiple studies, The U.S. Department of

Education (2001) has indicated results that demonstrated that student and school poverty

adversely affected student achievement. Again, the U.S. Department of Education (2001)

found the following key findings regarding the effects of poverty on student achievement

in a study conducted on third through fifth grade students from 71 high-poverty schools

that, the students scored below norms in all years and grades tested; students who lived

in poverty score significantly worse than other students; schools with the highest

percentages of poor students scored significantly worse initially, but closed the gap

slightly as time progressed. Numerous individual studies have found similar results

(Rowan et al., 2004).

Students from low income families consistently, regardless of ethnicity or race, score

well below average (Bergeson, 2006). For example, in one study, 43.5% of low-income

students did not successfully meet any of the required subject area assessments while

only 13.2% of low-income students met all of the required subject area assessments

(Bergeson, 2006).

Similarly, children who lived in persistently poor families scored 6 to 9 points lower on

the various assessments than children who were never poor (Smith et al., 1997: 164).

The extent of poverty has a significant effect. Children from very poor households with

income below50% of the poverty line scored 7 to 12 points lower than children from


40/97

29

near-poor households while children in poor households with income between 50 to

100% of poverty line, scored 4 to 7 points lower (Smith et al., 1997). Garfinkel and

Melanahan (1986) asserted that one reason why children from single-parent families are

less likely to finish high school is the precarious economic position of their families.

Mother-only families are more likely than other families to be poor, and their poverty is

more extreme than that of other groups (Bane, 1983).

Buncan and Hoffman (1985) posited that even among single-parent families living above

the poverty line, income insecurity is a common place. Previous research into the

intergenerational effects of family disruption indicates that income accounts for between

30 and 50 percent of the difference in high school among children from intact and non-

intact families (Bumpass 1984). The occupation and source of income (welfare, wage and

child support) received by impoverished households appears to affect the educational

attainment. For example mothers who work more intellectually stimulating jobs often

provided their children with more stimulating educational experiences at home (Bradely

& Corwyn 2000).

Furthermore the source of income received from poor households affects children mental

development. Research shows that children on welfare do not perform well academically

as children who live on child support payments. The study speculates that this may be

due to the lack of motivation on the part of parents who do not work often have (Powers,

1996).

The major influence on achievement is a students home atmosphere; how much reading

material is available, how the parents feel about education, what they want for their


41/97

30

children, what they do for and done with their children, how and how much they talk with

their children and how stable the family is. Both rich and poor families can create a

climate that foster learning. Even though family background does have a strong

relationship to achievement, it may be how parents bring up their children and not the

parents occupation, income, or education that really make the difference (White, 1982).

2.3.4 Household education and academic performance of pupils

Literature on academic achievement consistently has shown that parent/guardian

education is important in predicting childrens achievement (Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn, &

Duncan, 1994; Haveman & Wolfe, 1995; Smith, Brooks-Gunn, and Klebanov1997).

The mechanisms for understanding this influence, however, have not been well studied.

In general, family process models (Linver, Brooks-Gunn, & Kohen, 2002; Yeung,

Linver, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002) have examined how parenting behaviors, such as the

structure of the home environment, influence childrens achievement outcomes. If a

parent is not educated, he or she cannot provide sufficient cognitive stimulation for his or

her child. This is a concern because cognitive stimulation is vital during the

developmental period of the child (Corwyn & Brabley, 2002).

Corwyn and Bradley (2002) also found that maternal education had the most consistent

direct influence on childrens cognitive and behavioral outcomes with some indirect

influence through a cognitively stimulating home environment.

Halle et al. (1997), using a sample of low-income minority families, also found that

mothers with higher education had higher expectations for their childrens academic


42/97

31

achievement and that these expectations were related to their childrens subsequent

achievement in mathematics and reading.

Research on parenting also has shown that parent education is related to a warm, social

climate in the home. Klebanov et al. (1994) found that both mothers education and

family income were important predictors of the physical environment and learning

experiences in the home but that mothers education alone was predictive of parental

warmth.

Likewise, Smith et al. (1997) found that the association of household income and parents

education with childrens academic achievement was mediated by the home environment.

The mediation effect was stronger for maternal education than for family income. Thus,

these authors posited that education might be linked to specific achievement behaviors in

the home (for example. reading, playing). Corwyn and Bradley (2002) also found that

maternal education had the most consistent direct influence on childrens cognitive and

behavioral outcomes with some indirect influence through a cognitively stimulating home

environment.

Peters and Mullis (1997) found that parental education had a significant effect on

academic achievement. The mothers education level had a 20% higher affect than the

fathers education level on the academic outcomes of adolescents (Peters and Mullis,

1997).

Researches on status attainment have shown that high educational aspirations of parents

are associated with high aspirations in children, and that this association accounts for a


43/97

32

significant part of the association between father's and son's educational attainment

(Sewell and Shah, 1968).

Research show that the low academic achievement of ones parents often becomes

cyclical and affects the childs education because they, like theirparents | guardian before

them, are also in poverty (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002).

2.4 Theoretical Framework

There are several sociological theories that can be used to explain studies concerning

household structure and academic performance of children. The researcher used the

System theory, the social capital theory and Blooms sub-environment model for this

study.

2.4.1 System Theory

A useful way of thinking about a household and the influences it has on its members is by

means of system theory (Minuchin, 1988; Sameroff, 1983). A system theory explains the

existence of different parts which perform different functions in such a way that each part

interacts and is interdependent on the other parts. The educational system has similar

characteristics with other systems. Nwankwo (1984) and Zelvys (2004) describe a system

as series of interrelated and interdependent parts such that the interaction of any part

affects the whole system.

Childrens development inevitably takes place in particular contexts, and for the vast

majority of children the household or the family is the first and foremost important


44/97

33

context for physical and psychological growth (Schaffer, 1996).Traditionally, the

household is regarded as a permanent unit containing a married couple and their children

(Schaffer, 1996).

Circularity of influence is one of the basic principles of systems theory. Within a system

the pattern of influence is circular rather than linear. All components are mutually

interdependent; a change in one has implications for all others. Statement such as A

causes B are therefore insufficient because components affect each other in reciprocal

fashion.

From this perspective, most attention has been given to the way in which the nature of the

household is related to the childs progress, on the assumption that a stable household is

likely to be associated with a satisfactory academic performance of the children.

2.4.2 BloomsSub Environment Model

It was not until Bloom (1964) and a number of studies which examined the family and

children's affective and academic outcomes that a school of research emerged to

investigate the relationships between family influences and academic outcomes. Bloom

defines family environments as the conditions, forces, and external stimuli that impinge

on children. He proposes that these forces, which may be physical or social as well as

intellectual, provide a network that surrounds, engulfs, and plays on the child. The Bloom

model suggests that the total family context surrounding a child may be considered as

being composed of a number of sub environments. If the development of particular

characteristics, such as academic motivation and academic achievement, are to be


45/97


46/97

35

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1: Conceptual model of the relationship between household structure and

childrens academic performance

Source:Authors own construct

The conceptual framework establishes the relationship between household characteristics,

the socio- demographic background of pupils (personal characteristics) and the academic

performance of pupils.

Academic

Performance

Socio-demographic background of student

- Age

- Sex

- Religion

- Ethnicity

- Enrollment in class

- Regularity in school

Household characteristics

- Household size

- Sex of household head

- Education of house hold head

-

Age of house head- Occupation of house hold head

- Economic status of household

- Ownership of laptop or computer

- Access of internet

- Type of dwelling of household


47/97

36

Generally, pupils in JHS are mostly below age 18, they usually stay with either their

parents or guardians in a particular household. A household may be male headed or

female headed. Based on literature, regardless of the type of the household structure of

pupils in JHS, there are some important household characteristics that can also account

for the academic performance of pupils. Such factors include household size, household

economic background,parentseducation and sex of household head.


48/97

37

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODS

3.1 Introduction

The study examines the relationship between household structure and academic

performance of students in selected JHS in Manhyia. This chapter describes the methods

used by the researcher to collect data for the study. This is to enable the researcher

identify the strength and weaknesses of the approaches for future studies. This chapter is

divided into four sections. The first section describes the sources of data. The second

describe the population, sampling method and sample size for the study. The third section

covers methods of data collection. The fourth section deals with data processing and

ethical consideration.

3.2. Source of data

There are two major approaches to gathering information about a problem. Sometimes

the information required is already available and needs to be extracted. However, there is

information that needs to be collected. Based on these approaches to information

gathering, data are categorized into secondary and primary data. Both of these sources

were used in this study.

3.2.1 Secondary sources

Data from secondary sources included literature from authors such as Babbie, (2005),

Neuman, (2000) and Kumakpor, (2002).Other secondary sources included class


49/97

38

attendance register and terminal report booklets. Also students continuous assessment

sheet also be used in recording their performance in mathematics, English, Integrated

science and social studies were also used. These are the main core subjects at the JHS

level.

3.2.2 Primary source

The primary source of data for the study was the social survey.A social survey is a data

collection technique in which information is gathered from individuals (respondents), by

having them respond to questions. Marsh (1982) describes social survey as a method of

social research with three defining characteristics, its type of content, its form of the data

and the method of analysis employed. One significant advantage of survey method is that

it can be used to collect data that is a representative of a larger population. However

social survey can be difficult to finance and time consuming.

3.3 Design of social survey

3.3.1 Target Population

The target population consists of all possible respondents the researcher is interested in

studying. The main participants for this research include all JHS students between the

ages of 12-15, who were currently enrolled in JHS in Manhyia sub- metro of Kumasi.

3.3.2 Sampling method and size

Sampling is selecting a few respondents out of some larger grouping for study. Sampling

allows the researcher to study a workable number of cases from the large group to derive

findings thatare relevant for all members of the group. To obtain a representative sample


50/97

39

for the study, a probability sampling technique was employed. Probability sampling is the

general term for samples selected in accord with probability theory, typically involving

some selection mechanism (Barbbie, 2005). Specifically this study used both simple

random sampling to select schools and systematic sampling to select students.

The first stage of sampling processes involved the selection of schools for the study. The

schools within the study area were grouped into two clusters based on students

population in each school, that is cluster A and B. Cluster A was schools with higher

population (above 600) and cluster B was schools with low population (below 600).

Cluster A consisted of 12 schools and cluster B was made up of 15 schools. The schools

were numbered and placed in two different containers. One school was randomly

sampled from each of the two clusters. In all, the two schools that were sampled were; St.

Louis JHS and Afia Kobi JHS.

The second stage of sampling was the selection of pupils from the selected school using

systematic sampling. First, the sampling frame of all Students in JHS 2 in the two

selected schools was obtained from the head teachers of the schools. All the pupils on the

list could be selected from the sampling.

To accomplish the systematic sampling, there is the need to get the sampling interval (k),

which is the ratio of the number on the list to the sample size

K = 5

th


51/97

40

After this stage, one pupil was selected from the first to the fifth on the list through

simple random sampling. This was followed by every fifth position from the first selected

number. In all 100 respondents were sampled. (50 from each selected school).

3.3 3 Method of data collection

The main instrument used to collect data for this study was researcher administered

questionnaire. This instrument was chosen due to the ages of the pupils as well as to

achieve the objectives of the study. It was thought that students in JHS might find

difficulties in reading and understanding the questions. One of the main advantages of

this tool is that, it provides uniform information, which assures the comparability of data.

Again the questions can be explained. It is less likely that a question will be

misunderstood as the researcher can either repeat a question or put it in a form that is

understood by therespondent. On the other hand the quality of the data depends on the

quality of the interaction.

3.3.4 Data processing

The data collected with questionnaire need to be processed and analyzed. Data processing

is the translation of words into numbers. There are four steps in the processing of the

data. They are; coding, editing, data entry and data cleaning.


52/97

41

Data Coding

This process aims at simplifying data entry and analysis. The first step in this process was

to provide a coding frame, or the coding scheme. The scheme was then used to translate

the responses in the questionnaire into numbers.

Data Editing

Editing was carried out during and after data collection. The purpose of this was to

examine the data to find out whether all the questions have been answered correctly and

that there were no inconsistencies in responses.

Data Entry

Data was entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Software

(Version 16) by the researcher. Variables were defined in the variable view phase of the

SPSS programme while data was entered into the data view of the software programme to

create a data file.

Data Cleaning

Data cleaning involves eliminating errors in coding and transmitting the data into the

computer. Since data processing errors are inevitable, the researcher paid much attention

to the entry of data.

3.4 Ethical issues

Ethics is the study of what is proper and improper behavior of moral duty or obligation

(Reese & Fremouw, 1984). For social researchers, ethics involves the responsibilities that

researchers bear towards those who participate in research.


53/97

42

Ethical issue in social research is the preservation of confidentiality and the privacy of the

people involved in the study. Similarly, ethical issues are the concerns, dilemmas and

conflict that arise over the proper way to conduct research. Therefore ethics define what

is or are not legitimate to do or what moral research procedure involves (Newman,

2001).

The principal areas of ethical dilemmas that the researcher considered included the

scientific misconduct, informed consent research, fraud, privacy and confidentiality.

In dealing with these issues, the researcher explained to the respondents that, the study

was designed to determine the relationship between their household structure and

academic performance.

The consent of the respondents was sought before the data collection exercise. With the

permission of the headmasters, the pupils were released for the survey.

Issues of ethical concerns on privacy and confidentiality were also considered. The

students were assured of anonymity and confidentiality of their information given.


54/97

43

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.0 Introduction

This chapter outlines the results of the study. It focuses on the presentation, interpretation

and analysis of the responses of respondents sampled for the study. The study which

aimed at assessing the influence of household structure on academic performance was

conducted on one hundred Junior High School students in the Manhyia Educational Sub-

Metro of Kumasi.

The chapter is divided into three sections. Section A presents the socio-demographic

background of the respondents. Section B examines household characteristics and

sections C looked at the relationship between household characteristics and academic

performance of pupils who participated in the study.

SECTION A: Socio-demographic Background of respondents

This section provides the socio-demographic background of the respondents. The socio-

demographic characteristics of respondents considered included: age, religious affiliation,

and ethnicity, number of siblings and academic details of the respondents

4.1.1 Sex Distribution of Respondents

Table 4.1 below shows the sex distribution of the 100 study participants whose views

were sought for the study. Of the one hundred pupils sampled, forty-nine (49) were males


55/97

44

while fifty-one (51) were females. From the results it can be inferred that the sample

consisted of more females than males.

Table 4.1: Sex Distribution of Pupils

Sex N %

Male 49 49.0

Female 51 51.0

Total 100 100

Source: Field Survey, April, 2013

4.1.2 Age Distribution of Respondents

Table 4.2 below also shows the age distribution of pupils sampled for the study. From

Table 4.2 it can be seen that the largest number of the pupils sampled were fourteen (14)

years (n=42) of age at the time of the survey. The minimum and maximum ages of pupils

were 12 and 16 years respectively. The mean age of the sample was approximately 14

(13.7) with a standard deviation of 0.84. Pupils who were 13 years of age constituted the

second largest age group (n=35). Participants (n=1) who were 16 years at the time of the

survey were the least represented in the study. From the results it can be inferred that

pupils sampled for the study were mostly between the ages of 13 and 15 (n=93, 93.0%).


56/97

45

Table 4.2:Age Distribution of Pupils

Age (years) N %

12 6 6.0

13 35 35.0

14 42 42.0

15 16 16.0

16 1 1.0

Total 100 100


4.1.3 Ethnicity of Respondents

The frequency Table 4.3 below for Ethnicity indicates the number of participants for 5

categories of ethnicity, with the Akan ethnic group reporting the highest number of

participants (n=85, 85.0%), followed by Mole Dagbani (n=6, 6.0%) and Ewe (n=5,

5.0%). The least number of participants were reported for Frafra (n=1, 1.0%) and Ga

(n=2, 2.0%). This implies that in the sample of pupils selected for the study, there were

more Akans than there was any other ethnic group. This could be attributed to the fact

that the study was conducted within the Kumasi Educational sub-metro which is largely

dominated by the Akan tribe.

Table 4.3: Pupils Ethnicity

Characteristics N %

Akan 85 85

Mole Dagbani 7 7Ewe 5 5

Frafra 1 1

Ga 2 2

Total 100 100



57/97


58/97

47

4.2 Academic Details of Pupils

This part has to do with certain academic issues of the pupils which include the person

responsible for the payment of fees, assistance with regards to homework and

performance of pupils in the four core subjects.

4.2.1 Person who pays pupils school fees

The probe into who pays pupils school fees revealed a majority of participants indicating

that their school fees were paid by their fathers. A considerable number of pupils (n=26)

cited their mothers as being the payers of their schools fees. Respondents, that is, 5 and 2

also indicated their school fees were paid by their other relatives and non-relatives. A

summary of this result is presented in 4.6 below.

Table 4.6:Respondents self report on who pays fees

Characteristics N %

Father 67 67.0

Mother 26 26.0Other relative 2 2.0

Non-relative 5 5.0

Total 100 100.0


4.2.2 Missing school and number of missed times

Study participants were made to indicate if they ever missed school during the course of

the term. Those who indicated they had ever missed school were further instructed to

indicate the number of times they had missed or absented themselves from school. Out of

the total number of participants (N=100) sampled for the study, fifty-seven (57) indicated


59/97

48

they had ever missed school. Respondents (n=43) indicated they were present in class

Dissertation - Structure of House

Documents

Transcript of Dissertation - Structure of House